I never heard Russert do it.
His reputation as a sharp questioner was undeserved.
5 Likes
We should fly this moderator to all of the Senate debates, starting with Iowa.
1 Like
âI support lifeâ - so that means he is:
Against the death penalty?
For contraception (the only known way to decrease abortions)?
And for quality education, nationalized health care and and social security to help the lives of the vulnerable?
2 Likes
A better point would have been that voting for a law that gets enacted isnât just a âstatementâ, it has real effects on real people.
4 Likes
Itâs funny how everyone eviscerated him almost as much as Gregory until he died, and then he was lionized afterward. In part because we didnât think things could get worse, but they did.
4 Likes
If you think life is sacred, then you canât dig up a carrot or swat a mosquito. You canât cut down a living tree. You cannot take an anti-biotic. You cannot shoot a bear that is eating your brain.
If you think a cluster of cells is a person, then EVERY cluster of cells has rights, regardless of the species it belongs to(and that goes for cancer tumors, as wellâafter all it wants to live, just like box jellies). If you think you have the right to control what other persons decide to do with their reproductive machinery, then you do not believe in freedom, you believe that might makes right, and you want to defend your point of view at gunpoint. If might makes right, then I can decide to wipe you off the face of the Earth. If might makes right, then not much is really sacredâexcept might. My might will ALWAYS trump yours, unless you live in a fireproof house, and wear a bulletproof vest and employ a food taster and a gas mask. See where blind adherence to LOGIC can get you? Into the realm of the utterly absurd.
3 Likes
where udalls ad
Russert was capable of asking tough questionsâhe just never did it.
And he never, ever called out liars when they lied.
3 Likes
He vas only following ordersâŚ
1 Like
He (or more likely his production staff) was great at locating âgotchaâ video and playing it to begin an interview, but then he would rarely (never?) follow up on the stream-of-consciousness baloney that followed.
Apparently these political liars have decided that if they just âstick to their gunsâ the questioner will give up, leave them alone, and let them continue their lying ways (as we all know, this âagree to disagreeâ nonsense has absolutely nothing to do with facts).
For them, itâs a simple matter of outlasting your opponent. Sadly, it almost always works - even in this case.
1 Like
Iâm still waiting for some lone and very brave journalist to actually call a liar a liar.
1 Like
I was just looking at the details of the amendment, on ballotpedia: http://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Definition_of_"Personhood"_Initiative,Amendment_67(2014)
One thing I noticed about the bill description is that supporters refer to an accident involving a woman 8 months pregnant and her âpre-bornâ child. That term is new to me. Itâs clear why theyâre trying to use it, but always annoying when people editorialize through forced language change.
2 Likes
No, letâs just clone him and bring on a new era where journalists prepare, do their research and question the stupidity.
2 Likes
You sir, are the new Diogenes!
Gardner has gotten away with that exact thing before in his political career. During his first Congressional campaign, Gardner made fun of his opponent for talking about abortion rights, and promised voters that this wasnât a big deal for him, and that he would not make culture war issues and abortion restrictions a priority if he was elected.
So ⌠Gardner essentially gave everyone the okeydoke, and he got elected. And then Gardner proceeded to do exactly the opposite of what he had promised. He flipping co-sponsored the federal personhood legislation, as well as supporting the personhood ballot initiatives in Colorado. But he didnât pay a political price.
4 Likes
According to Orwell, âthe purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever.â The idea that language influences worldview is linguistic relativity.
For example, the word âfreeâ still existed in Newspeak but could only be used in terms of something not being possessed as in, âthe dog is free from liceâ or, âthis field is free from weeds.â It could not be used in terms of being able to do as one pleases, as in âfree choiceâ or âfree willâ since these concepts no longer existed. Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum. Any redundancies in the English language were removed.
3 Likes
You should call the local Dem headquarters and remind them to start calling you and every other registered Democrat in the county to vote. I suppose their doing door-to-door outreach to also register new voters may be hoping too much?
I was recently in Aspen, CO. What I came to realize is that there are a LOT of mega-wealthy Coloradans who will vote Republican for purely financial reasons. They arenât affected by laws for average people. If they need an abortion they get one. Their health care is not in jeopardy. Schools? Not a problem because their kids go to private ones. Public transportation? Hah!
I met some of these people and liked them, but they look out for themselves first. That is how they got so rich. The one thing that might swing their vote is the environmental policies of the Parties. They loves them some pretty mountains!
But make no mistake about it. It isnât only rednecks in CO who might vote for this weasel. I hope the good guys come out and vote in November.
An aside: the next time one of these f**k-wads says he is âjust for life,â the other debater should say, ââŚreally? Because your stance on capital punishment, war, and denying health care to people make me think you are more for death.â
4 Likes
This explains a lot of Gardnerâs overtly stupid statements.
1 Like
Remember the Duck Test?
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, itâs a duck.
Gardnerâs bill sure looks like a personhood bill.